|
Attorney alleges that the plaintiff underwent incisional hernia repair surgery and was implanted with bard/davol ventralex on (b)(6) 2010.It is alleged that the patient suffered the development of hernia recurrence, adhesions and chronic pain.It is also alleged that the patient underwent a corrective revision surgery on or about (b)(6) 2013 and was implanted with bard/davol ventrio.It is alleged that the plaintiff "has suffered injuries, losses, and damages resulting from numerous defects in the product that create an unreasonably high risk of injury with severe permanent adverse health consequences." attorney alleges the plaintiff suffered permanent injuries including scarring, disfigurement." attorney alleges the plaintiff's adverse reaction, complications, and further surgery directly and proximately resulted from the defective and dangerous condition of the product"; the plaintiff sustained injuries including hernia recurrence, mesh adhesions, chronic pain and permanent physical disability due to the product.It is alleged that the plaintiff continues to undergo medical care and treatment.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury and the device was defective.
|
|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including permanent injury, hernia recurrence, adhesions and pain.The instructions-for-use (ifu) supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence and adhesions as a possible complications.Note, the date of event is provided as a best estimate (b)(6) 2022 based on the date of awareness.This mdr represents the bard/davol ventrio mesh (device #2).An additional mdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol mesh ¿ ventralex (device #1).Should additional information be provided, a supplemental mdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|